Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

A single news corporation , FOX and its branches, provides 'news' to literally 3/4's of the world's population. Their biased nature is beyond dispute, and they shamelessly influence their massive public and therefore have enormous control over the result of elections. (example: Fox gave over one hundred hours to the republican convention and about 4 to the democratic)

When News corporations are contolled only by their own interests, mainly economic, and also have massive control over the oppinions of the voting public, democracy fails.

Even without the massive flaws in our media, and therefore in the intelligence and awareness of the voters, we find ourselves in a situation where we can only vote for one of two candidates.

Sure one person one vote but that becomes irelevant when you only have two choices for world leader that have a possibility of being elected. You are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is no kind of democracy at all.

No matter which politician is elected, Buisness is the true power in the world, and economic interests will out. The true issues of our time, such as the enviromental and third world crisis, are not even on the platforms. The political offices designed to protect our earth and its resources are now held by buisness officials.

Did you know that the head of the forest conservation division is owned by a lumber executive? this situation is mimiced in innumerable 'public offices' that are now held by private executives. Why didnt you know? because media i busy selling you products and distracting you with pop-news, tabloid scandals, tear jerker stories and other bullshit while the humanitarian and enviromental interests are ignored and hidden.

The powers of wealth are so deeply and insidiously embedded in every aspect of society that they simply will not allow any significant restructuring of the system. They simply provide us with the illusion of power by giving us all one useless vote to cast as we will between two candidates, allowed to run only on the whims of their controllers (both of whom are brothers in the same secret society) and if that vote turns out in a way disagreeable to them, they can easily change the result, either by manipulation of the new voting machines, which can and have been used to negate the votes of thousands of legitimate voters (some voters were banned for crimes commited in the future, such as the year 2007, or because they shared a name or birthdate with a fellon) , or else by simply announcing the 'winner' before votes have been tabulated, which is what happend last year.

Did you know that Bush's cousin, a high ranking partner in fox, was largely responsible for announcing Bush the 'Clear winner' on his network before votes had been analyzed, which led to all other news stations following the lead?

Anyways, just the surface.

The point is, i harbour no illusions. The society is supremely well designed to give the illusion of power to the people while actually totally controlling it. Even the education system is designed to brainwash children from age 6 to obey authority and be slaves to social pressures. In other words, we live in a world where we are programed to obey, given 2 choices for president, and our votes are just a formality that can be manipulated anyways.

Do what you want. Carry signs. Shout in the streets. Protest. The newspapers will cover up your protests and run stories about children singing at ronal reagens funeral instead. You got 250 000 rioting in the streets against bush? the paper will say 30 000, and it will be on page c 11, beneath the mcdonalds ad.

Vote. WOnt accomplish much. Lobby. Get a position in public office.

Either you will realize,. in time, the true nature of the system and your powerlessness to cause change and be destroyed by that knowledge and drop out of politics, or you will stick to your principals and be somehow silenced and removed, or more likely youll sell out for a little piece of the cake. If you dont someone else will, youll be replaced.

If you manage to make enough noise, the CIA will assasinate you or frame you or silence you or buy you off.

The only freedom now is personal freedom, a freedom of the mind and a freedom in the way you live your life. This is the only meaningfull and powerfull 'vote' and its a vote in favour of total freedom. Forget voting once a year on issues defined by those in power. Vote with your actions, live and think as the free creature you were meant to be, but realize that a freedom of the masses will not come until this very reality structure is shaken to its core.

As i see it our only 'hope' is that our reckless enviromental rape and massive violence and weapons of ever increasing power cause such a monsterous catastrophe that We are either forced to instate big changes, such as a massive move towards new forms of energy, or else the world as we know it will end, societies will fall apart, thousands or millions will die and we will return to various forms of agricultural, primitive or tribal existances, our brief but destructive epoch in history lost in time like that of the romans, the egyptians, the toltecs and the greeks.

if that vote turns out in a way disagreeable to them, they can easily change the result, either by manipulation of the new voting machines,

Do you have proof that any election fraud has ever occurred inany U.S. election? When I say proof, I don't mean Left-wingconspiracy theories, I mean actual evidence.

or else by simply announcing the 'winner' before votes have been tabulated, which is what happend last year.

That is called prediction.

It is common in every election. If it looks like it is goingone way or the other in an election, and there is little chancefor one candidate to come from behind, the news networks surmiseon who is the winner. Once all the votes are counted however,and the other candidate is the winner, the news networks willnot "cover up" who is the real winner.

Even the education system is designed to brainwash children from age 6 to obey authority and be slaves to social pressures.

Do you have proof of a systematic effort to control the brainwashthe population and control their will?

Do what you want. Carry signs. Shout in the streets. Protest. The newspapers will cover up your protests and run stories about children singing at ronal reagens funeral instead. You got 250 000 rioting in the streets against bush? the paper will say 30 000, and it will be on page c 11, beneath the mcdonalds ad.

Coverage of protests against Republicans, globalization, the IMF(andall that Lefty stuff)is quite extensive. Every time large protests occur, the news media covers it.

Check in the dictionary and you will find a declaration and a prediction are two vcry different things.

Because elections(especially presidential elections) are so importantand they get so much press, the general population really wantsto know who won. The American news media routinely makes "predictions/declarations" of winners when the election APPEARSto have been won by one of the candidates.

When "prediction/declaration's" are made:

1. When it truly appears as if a candidate has the electionwrapped up.

2. If the initial "guess" by the news network turns out to bewrong, they will retract and tell the public that it looks likeit has swung the other way. I understand how some people might thinkthat this "guessing" before all of the votes are counted is kindof dumb, and in some ways it is. But, there is no evidence ofpolitical collusion, corruption, and election fraud when it comesto news media covering elections. If anybody asserts differently,please show me proof.

Our next President will have to win the next election. It is in November. I would have thought you would have heard about it. Everybody gets a vote. When the person you choose doesn't get elected, you can whine and complain all you want. We anticipated that in advance, so we put provisions into the Constitution to protect you.

Quote:Moonshoe said:A single news corporation , FOX and its branches, provides 'news' to literally 3/4's of the world's population. Their biased nature is beyond dispute, and they shamelessly influence their massive public and therefore have enormous control over the result of elections. (example: Fox gave over one hundred hours to the republican convention and about 4 to the democratic)[/quote75% of the world occupants watch Fox News? Horseshit. Why don't you mention how the left-leaning Daily Show is also owned by the same company as Fox news? hm? Any "figures" to back this up? I hardly think that they gave "four hours" to the DNC. Any stats?

Quote:

When News corporations are contolled only by their own interests, mainly economic, and also have massive control over the oppinions of the voting public, democracy fails.

Why would it be more economically viable for them to want Bush instead of Kerry? I can't see the difference, really.

Quote:

Even without the massive flaws in our media, and therefore in the intelligence and awareness of the voters, we find ourselves in a situation where we can only vote for one of two candidates.

Do you notice the polls on this right-wing-conspiracy box in your living room? Notice how they show Nader? Have you ever voted before? Is it the responsibility of "The Media" to ensure that their watchers are "aware and intelligent?". They can easily get on the internet and research things.

Quote:

Sure one person one vote but that becomes irelevant when you only have two choices for world leader that have a possibility of being elected. You are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is no kind of democracy at all.

Actually, if it's got the word "vote" in it, and the majority of the people's vote carries teh weight, it's actually a verbatim definition of "Democracy".

Quote:

No matter which politician is elected, Buisness is the true power in the world, and economic interests will out.

If it doesn't matter who is elected, then why does it matter that we "aren't" in a democracy, in your view?

Quote:

The true issues of our time, such as the enviromental and third world crisis, are not even on the platforms. The political offices designed to protect our earth and its resources are now held by buisness officials.

The EPA is being run by business interests? Any proof/links? JohnKerry.com and GeorgeBush.com both deal with their environmental plans, so it's definatly "on the platform".

Quote:

Did you know that the head of the forest conservation division is owned by a lumber executive?

How does a lumber executive "own" a person? What is the "Forest conservation division"? Can you show any links to such crockery of feces?

Quote:

this situation is mimiced in innumerable 'public offices' that are now held by private executives. Why didnt you know? because media i busy selling you products and distracting you with pop-news, tabloid scandals, tear jerker stories and other bullshit while the humanitarian and enviromental interests are ignored and hidden.

Maybe you could show us some links to validate your position?

Quote:

(both of whom are brothers in the same secret society)

Er, the controllers of both parties are members in the same secret society?

Quote:

and if that vote turns out in a way disagreeable to them, they can easily change the result, either by manipulation of the new voting machines, which can and have been used to negate the votes of thousands of legitimate voters (some voters were banned for crimes commited in the future, such as the year 2007, or because they shared a name or birthdate with a fellon) , or else by simply announcing the 'winner' before votes have been tabulated, which is what happend last year.

Last year? Could you show us some more links or proof of this? I'm more familiar with a four year election process, not one year. Was this "last year" with the "electronic machines" the one where bush "stole" the election?

Quote:

Did you know that Bush's cousin, a high ranking partner in fox, was largely responsible for announcing Bush the 'Clear winner' on his network before votes had been analyzed, which led to all other news stations following the lead?

Ooh, wrong.Exerpted from http://www.pbase.com/ethanbird/michael_moore_sucksIn fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening?before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

The premature calls probably cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided, and many voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. (Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the West coast, the early concession was widely blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while West coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West.) Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold; depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.

Quote:

The point is, i harbour no illusions.

I'll snip the rest as it'll be clear to those of us with intelligence that you are a prattling imbecile, and those that flock to your style of writing (GazzBut, i'm sure, Alex123 maybe even) will love it. Read a few books bud.